159
159
Feb 21, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 159
favorite 0
quote 0
the warning was aimed at defense department workers at the pentagon and around the world. secretary panetta sent them a written message, as he left for a nato defense ministers meeting in brussels. in it, he said there are limited options for coping with the looming across-the-board cuts. and, he said: >> on our civilians it will be catastrophic. >> woodruff: within hours, top pentagon officials were out, saying employees could lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks. civilians will experience a 20 percent decrease in their pay between late april and september. as a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations lie. >> reporter: the furloughs could start in late april and save roughly $5 billion. uniformed personnel at war would be exempt, but in a letter to congress, panetta wrote that the spending cuts will slow training and the procurement of weapons. the result, he said, will be a hollow force. the nation's top military leader had said as much last week at a senate hearing on the automatic cuts. chair of the jo
the warning was aimed at defense department workers at the pentagon and around the world. secretary panetta sent them a written message, as he left for a nato defense ministers meeting in brussels. in it, he said there are limited options for coping with the looming across-the-board cuts. and, he said: >> on our civilians it will be catastrophic. >> woodruff: within hours, top pentagon officials were out, saying employees could lose one day of work per week for 22 weeks. civilians...
172
172
Feb 27, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 172
favorite 0
quote 0
conversely, i talked to people in the pentagon. the lower in ranks you go, the more they like this guy. the more they like the sense that an enlisted man is going to run the building. if you can use that as a springboard he's facing immense challenges from sequestration to afghanistan to a nuclear iran but it's an opportunity for him to seize the moment. if he does, people will forget this pretty quickly i think. >> woodruff: what about the sour relations or whatever lingering effect there is from this loud vote of no confidence from republicans in the senate? does that affect his ability to do his job? >> i think the important thing for people to realize is it's a perceptions game. if he lets it bother him, it will. but conversely, if he doesn't and if he moves on out, i mean, senators today we're talking some are saying, this will wound him like senator graham of south carolina. others like the chairman of the committee senator levin said no it won't. we're all about tomorrow. we don't focus that much on the past. the truth is so
conversely, i talked to people in the pentagon. the lower in ranks you go, the more they like this guy. the more they like the sense that an enlisted man is going to run the building. if you can use that as a springboard he's facing immense challenges from sequestration to afghanistan to a nuclear iran but it's an opportunity for him to seize the moment. if he does, people will forget this pretty quickly i think. >> woodruff: what about the sour relations or whatever lingering effect...
245
245
Feb 26, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 245
favorite 0
quote 0
>> pentagon is talking about having less aircraft carrier presence. the foreign-policy establishment could see some of its dollars cut. foreign aid is never the favorite thing of the congress. some of those accounts could be pressured. a lot of these cuts ordered by sequestration are essentially dumb. they are acrsooss the board. certain things are exempt. ibo who run these cabinet departments often lack the authority just -- people who run these cabinet departments often lack the authority did say we are going -- authority to say we are going to keep this or that. us toes it hard for represent ourselves as a model that ought to be in related by others -- to be emulated by others. >> what do you hear when you talk to leaders around the world, not just about sequestration -- what are people saying to you? .> all those things america's inability to tackle its deficit and debt. able shake their heads. at the end of the day, -- people shake their heads. because at the end of the day, they are dependent on the united states. the united states controls the
>> pentagon is talking about having less aircraft carrier presence. the foreign-policy establishment could see some of its dollars cut. foreign aid is never the favorite thing of the congress. some of those accounts could be pressured. a lot of these cuts ordered by sequestration are essentially dumb. they are acrsooss the board. certain things are exempt. ibo who run these cabinet departments often lack the authority just -- people who run these cabinet departments often lack the...
169
169
Feb 23, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 169
favorite 0
quote 0
so in the case of the pentagon, you know, that means that destroyers, various aircraft carriers will not deploy to places like the persian gulf and other theatre, and that's a big effect on local economies, in areas like rampton rode, virginia, san diego. and it's an effect affect that will be clearly felt on contractors who rely on navy contracts for shipbuildings. so i think the affects will be gradual. no one can really tell when the agencies will sort of pull the plug. and as i said, the cuts nay not take effect for that long. >> suarez: you said at the outset there is a political dimension to this. of course as we enter the final week there most certainly is what is the they are telling opinion researchers if friday comes and goes without a deal? >> well, i think part of the problem is that many americans don't really understand what sequestration is. it's become this obsession in washington. but many people are only just now beginning to become aware of it. but the recent, a recent poll by the pew center for research said that many more republicans would be held responsible tha
so in the case of the pentagon, you know, that means that destroyers, various aircraft carriers will not deploy to places like the persian gulf and other theatre, and that's a big effect on local economies, in areas like rampton rode, virginia, san diego. and it's an effect affect that will be clearly felt on contractors who rely on navy contracts for shipbuildings. so i think the affects will be gradual. no one can really tell when the agencies will sort of pull the plug. and as i said, the...
159
159
Feb 19, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 159
favorite 0
quote 0
we do have an opportunity to talk to several people within the pentagon and what we found we were very disappointed by was that they weren't taking the steps that they really needed to take to address this problem. >> brown: is this for you an act of... is it journalism? is it art? i mean it's film making. how do you see what your doing? >> well, i guess i see myself as an artist. but as an artist i think you take on the greatest challenge you can. to put all these things together, the art, film making, journalism into one, i see it as an artistic enterprise but at the same time, of course, when you're dealing with this kind of subject, you have to be very journalistically precise which we were. but it's a challenge. i mean this film was being made actually for two audiences. one was for the film making audience. it's been very successful. it was nominated for academy award. it's won many audience awards but it was also made for policy makers in washington d.c. >> brown: you had them in mind absolutely. i remember cut by cut we'd be thinking, this will play to an audience but maybe in
we do have an opportunity to talk to several people within the pentagon and what we found we were very disappointed by was that they weren't taking the steps that they really needed to take to address this problem. >> brown: is this for you an act of... is it journalism? is it art? i mean it's film making. how do you see what your doing? >> well, i guess i see myself as an artist. but as an artist i think you take on the greatest challenge you can. to put all these things together,...
187
187
Feb 12, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 187
favorite 0
quote 0
white house and pentagon officials confirmed it today. the decision marks the next phase in the administration's plan to end the u.s. combat role in afghanistan by 2014. there are currently 66,000 american troops in afghanistan, down from a peak of 100,000. a sharply divided senate armed services committee moved today to approve chuck hagel for defense secretary. the party line vote on the former senator was 14-11. his fellow republicans challenged hagel's past statements and votes on israel, iraq and iran's nuclear weapons program, while democrats argued hagel was more than qualified. >> i just believe that the testimony of senator hagel was not reassuring. i don't think he did come across clear and convincing, that he understood our policies toward iran. and the fact that you don't understand why and you can't clearly articulate the bad news for america for the iranians' nuclear capability sharply and to the point is unnerving and for the times in which we live. >> the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served h
white house and pentagon officials confirmed it today. the decision marks the next phase in the administration's plan to end the u.s. combat role in afghanistan by 2014. there are currently 66,000 american troops in afghanistan, down from a peak of 100,000. a sharply divided senate armed services committee moved today to approve chuck hagel for defense secretary. the party line vote on the former senator was 14-11. his fellow republicans challenged hagel's past statements and votes on israel,...
185
185
Feb 7, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 185
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> sreenivasan: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. the assault killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. panetta testified there'd been no specific warning of an imminent attack, so u.s. forces were too far away to respond. >> the united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. the u.s. military has neither the resources nor the responsibility to have a firehouse next to every u.s. facility in the world. >> sreenivasan: republican senator john mccain of arizona argued the
. >> sreenivasan: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the...
69
69
Feb 10, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 69
favorite 0
quote 0
can the pentagon survive budget cuts or are secretary panetta's worries on the mark? mort zuckerman. >> yes, i think they can survive it. they have a gigantic budget. they have to get their funds spent in the right priority. a lot of people feel we're going to have to cut costs out of virtually every department. we cannot ignore it. everybody comes one a case why we should spend money, and nobody comes one a case why we should raise the money to do it. we have to do something to get our budgets under control because otherwise this whole thing is going to explode. >> how does our military compare with mill fares around the world? >> we have about 1 million in the active owe. >> 1.2 million active -- 1.4 active duty, or something. but, john, if panetta is correct, why does the vice president the united states propose a different set of cuts for the same amount of money if it is going to savage the defense budget? he has not come forward with. that clearly this is a meat axe approach. it's not the right approach, but frankly it's the only way the republicans are going to
can the pentagon survive budget cuts or are secretary panetta's worries on the mark? mort zuckerman. >> yes, i think they can survive it. they have a gigantic budget. they have to get their funds spent in the right priority. a lot of people feel we're going to have to cut costs out of virtually every department. we cannot ignore it. everybody comes one a case why we should spend money, and nobody comes one a case why we should raise the money to do it. we have to do something to get our...
110
110
Feb 23, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 110
favorite 0
quote 0
but the biggest dollar impact is going to be as david and i were talk a moment ago the pentagon. the pentagon gets hit harder than domestic departments. >> so much of the dialogue is finger pointing. who do you this will get blamed? >> the blame for the sequester is ridiculous. the congress passed. the president signed it. they all own it. they all got it. >> that was the point. >> that was the point. both parties consenting adults, knew that they were designing something that was designed to be so bad that it produced a deal. it's just that they haven't been able to get to the deal. in terms of who is winning the message ordinarily, it's a little hard to say. president obama has got the high side. he won the election. the public tends to support if you lay out all of the policy positions support where he's coming from, taxing the rich. but the idea of cutting spending is a very popular idea and republicans are riding that at a moment. gwen: except this new pew research showed that people weren't much for anything. it was hard to know whether it was because they don't like the id
but the biggest dollar impact is going to be as david and i were talk a moment ago the pentagon. the pentagon gets hit harder than domestic departments. >> so much of the dialogue is finger pointing. who do you this will get blamed? >> the blame for the sequester is ridiculous. the congress passed. the president signed it. they all own it. they all got it. >> that was the point. >> that was the point. both parties consenting adults, knew that they were designing...
153
153
Feb 15, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 153
favorite 0
quote 0
inside the pentagon they are consumed right now with the sequester. the looming $500 billion and budget cuts. they don't need this monkey wrench thrown into the works. hagel has support in the pentagon but there's leeriness, he didn't do very well in his confirmation hearing and there is blood in the water and the they're moving inÑi for the kil. basically i think what's happening and what happened today is the sense that this is another ten days for drips, drips, drips that could send his nomination into a tail spin. but basically the military's professional. ash carter, the deputy, is a great guy. secretary panetta, who spent time this afternoon at section 60 of arlington national cemetery, was hoping to say good-bye to some ofxd the young men and women who died in afghanistan and iraq and then those monterey for keeps will be coming back and going to brussels next week. >> warner: for the nato ministers meeting. you said there was some leeriness in the pentagon aboutó hagel and what kind of a defense secretary he is. based on what? >> based on th
inside the pentagon they are consumed right now with the sequester. the looming $500 billion and budget cuts. they don't need this monkey wrench thrown into the works. hagel has support in the pentagon but there's leeriness, he didn't do very well in his confirmation hearing and there is blood in the water and the they're moving inÑi for the kil. basically i think what's happening and what happened today is the sense that this is another ten days for drips, drips, drips that could send his...
51
51
Feb 24, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 51
favorite 0
quote 0
so it's a lot of money in a short amount of time, and it will affect pentagon workers, and they've made a point, they're going to have to be furloughed a day a week beginning inapril. you are going to probably have individual stories of hurt and pain, the family that saved up for a vacation and shows up at a national park, two kids in the backseat, and it's closed. that's what happened during the government shutdown. it's stories like that that can go viral. you are going to have kids turned away from headstart because they can't afford to cover that many people. but it's not all going to be felt in one day. and frankly, people are so cynical about government and government spending that most people think, you know, either the politicians are going to solve this at the last minute, or it is not going to matter anyway. so you haven't -- the president has tried to gin up an emotional reaction in the country among his supporters, and i don't think that's really happened. >> to add to that, only 44 billion of the 85 billion in cuts will go into effect in 2013, amounting to about 0.6% of gdp
so it's a lot of money in a short amount of time, and it will affect pentagon workers, and they've made a point, they're going to have to be furloughed a day a week beginning inapril. you are going to probably have individual stories of hurt and pain, the family that saved up for a vacation and shows up at a national park, two kids in the backseat, and it's closed. that's what happened during the government shutdown. it's stories like that that can go viral. you are going to have kids turned...
67
67
Feb 27, 2013
02/13
by
FBC
tv
eye 67
favorite 0
quote 0
pentagon or at the department of defense. it is a problem of misallocation of resources from the front end. let me give you one example of that. soviets during the cold war had a saying better is the enemy of good enough. they would look at the military equipment, if what they had was good enough to do the job they would not overpay for something better. here in the states we have serious problem overpaying for equipment that is more than adequate for the job that is required. a perfect example of that is the f-35. you i am a retired naval aviator. i spent 20 years fly for the united states navy, 3500 flight hours. if the navy would capable or run its own purchase program the navy wouldn't go anywhere near the f-35 because it cost 2 1/2 times as much f-18 for only marginal increase in capability. melissa: let me start you there. i'm all in favor of cutting spending. >> gotcha. melissa: one. my favorite things in the world except when we're talking about handbags. setting that aside, if you don't do incremental improvements in
pentagon or at the department of defense. it is a problem of misallocation of resources from the front end. let me give you one example of that. soviets during the cold war had a saying better is the enemy of good enough. they would look at the military equipment, if what they had was good enough to do the job they would not overpay for something better. here in the states we have serious problem overpaying for equipment that is more than adequate for the job that is required. a perfect example...
WHUT (Howard University Television)
114
114
Feb 13, 2013
02/13
by
WHUT
tv
eye 114
favorite 0
quote 0
the pentagon has said that the troops will be in afghanistan until 2024 and beyond. in the 21st century military that the president and pentagon want to create, it unnecessarily need huge military bases all across afghanistan. what they want our special operations troops working in coordination with the capacity for drone strikes, but denies drone strikes and drone surveillance. what you mentioned in relation to the tragedy, just less than, it is so symptomatic of what happens. the civilians are at high risk, the antagonism towards the u.s. continues to rise, and the taliban says until all the troops are out, they will continue to fight. so afghans are saddled with this ongoing war. >> you spend one month and afghanistan recently. can you talk about the people he met and what their reactions have been to the u.s. presence? >> printers are so harsh in afghanistan. -- winters are so harsh in afghanistan. this time i was able to go up to the mountains to visit with those who are pushed up to a mountainside because they can afford piped water, so they move higher where t
the pentagon has said that the troops will be in afghanistan until 2024 and beyond. in the 21st century military that the president and pentagon want to create, it unnecessarily need huge military bases all across afghanistan. what they want our special operations troops working in coordination with the capacity for drone strikes, but denies drone strikes and drone surveillance. what you mentioned in relation to the tragedy, just less than, it is so symptomatic of what happens. the civilians...
89
89
Feb 17, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 89
favorite 0
quote 0
the pentagon is behind the reductions. you want a smaller nuclear arsenal that you can be confident will work. >> countries okay you off. countries with the bomb. the u.s., russia, britain, france, china, india, pakistan, israel, north korea. countries believed to be seeking the bomb, iran,ee p egypt, nigeria, syria, taiwan. officially given up to pssing or developing the bomb, south africa, argentina, brazil, kazakhstan, belarus, ukraine, libya. >> you want to correct that buchanan? >> i don't think there are any active programs in any of those countries you are talking about except possibly iran. i don't think egypt, i don't think they have nuclear programs at all. and south africa gave up an actual nuclear weapon. libya gave up what they had inside that mountain which juan working that well. >> do you want to speak to anything? particularly iran? >> iran is going to be i just came back from the middle east, iran is going to be the issue for that part of the world. nobody is comfortable with what iran is doing at this st
the pentagon is behind the reductions. you want a smaller nuclear arsenal that you can be confident will work. >> countries okay you off. countries with the bomb. the u.s., russia, britain, france, china, india, pakistan, israel, north korea. countries believed to be seeking the bomb, iran,ee p egypt, nigeria, syria, taiwan. officially given up to pssing or developing the bomb, south africa, argentina, brazil, kazakhstan, belarus, ukraine, libya. >> you want to correct that...
172
172
Feb 11, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 172
favorite 0
quote 0
and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes allegations that bubbled up into the media that gis and recently returned veterans were making public. and they tracked all these. and whenever they could, they tried to tamp down these allegations. >> your book is very important to me. i was there at the white house in the 1960s when president johnson escalated the war. my own great regret is that i didn't see the truth of the war in time didn't see what was happening there. and yet, as i said, you didn't even come to the experience until after it was all over. and yet you have become obsessed with telling this story.
and this was a taskforce that was set up in the pentagon. and it was designed to track war crimes cases in the wake of the exposure of the my lai massacre. >> where 500 men, women, and children were murdered by american g.i.s. >> that's right. the military basically, what they wanted to do was make sure they were never caught flatfooted again by an atrocity scandal. so in the army chief of staff's office, there were a number of army colonels who worked to track all war crimes...
98
98
Feb 12, 2013
02/13
by
WETA
tv
eye 98
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> that was one of the first stories i ever covered in the pentagon. it was female aviators? i did a story this year on a female fighter pilot, the first female fighter pilot in the air force that is now the first female fighter wing commander. i flew with her in her f-15 and to see her go through this, opening it to ground combat is stunning. i was just stunned when secretary panetta said the joint chiefs supported that. i think it is a challenge going forward and the military has to take this slow and they will take it slow. i don't think they can lower physical standards or you end up with problems. what people don't understand is part of the reason having women in combat is so important to females, having the opportunity is leadership positions. you have seen amazing women over the years. and have been awarded silver stars because they are in the middle of a fire fight. this is a great opportunity going forward. tavis: chuck hagel is in line to take that job, will he be? >> i predict he probably will be. i don't think any of us disagree, he far and notme this have that ha
. >> that was one of the first stories i ever covered in the pentagon. it was female aviators? i did a story this year on a female fighter pilot, the first female fighter pilot in the air force that is now the first female fighter wing commander. i flew with her in her f-15 and to see her go through this, opening it to ground combat is stunning. i was just stunned when secretary panetta said the joint chiefs supported that. i think it is a challenge going forward and the military has to...
99
99
Feb 4, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 99
favorite 0
quote 0
>> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event, they have a standard. names are nominated. it goes through an interagency process. and finally it makes it to the president. and he makes the final decision who is or is not on the list. does that sound like what you understand? >> i think that's certainly what the government has said happens. and, of course, this is the problem is that the only thing that we ever know about the counterintelligence stuff over the last 10 or 11 years has been, you know, what the government has been forced to say, what journalists have been able to find out, or what human rights organ
>> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in which this person, particular person is cooperative or not vis-À-vis capturing the person. in any event,...
164
164
Feb 7, 2013
02/13
by
KQED
tv
eye 164
favorite 0
quote 0
>> brown: let me just ask you briefly, if you would, because given the kind of changes you are talk pentagon, people paying online, for example. where is this headed? does the american public have to get used to a lesser service and perhaps at some point the end of the postal service? >> no, not at all. we think the future is very bright, as long as you take the steps to get the financein order. our plan-- our plan has us getting back in the black and paying the debt down. now, will there be changes? absolutely. some of the changes we discussed already. we have already made plenty of changes. since the year 2000, this organization, the postal service has reducedly the head count-- head count, payroll, not jobs or job descriptions, payroll-- by 305,000 employees, 193,000 since 2008. we have-- our people do a great job. they're very productive. we have done anything and everything in our power to try to catch up to the loss that we've got in volume. people say, suggest we raise prices dramatically. that chase more volume away. we are trying to take a very business-like approach. we think it's
>> brown: let me just ask you briefly, if you would, because given the kind of changes you are talk pentagon, people paying online, for example. where is this headed? does the american public have to get used to a lesser service and perhaps at some point the end of the postal service? >> no, not at all. we think the future is very bright, as long as you take the steps to get the financein order. our plan-- our plan has us getting back in the black and paying the debt down. now, will...